"Fact checkers made a mistake" articles draw out a certain crowd, and their over the top rhetoric is always the same. The dominant narrative in here is unlikely

"Fact checkers made a mistake" articles draw out a certain crowd, and their over the top rhetoric is always the same. The dominant narrative in here is unlikely to correspond with the public at large, or even the majority of HN users. This is a particularly weird submission because the article the person authored was basically blogspam. They took someone else's hard work, put a clickbait title on it intending for the sole value of pandering to a very specific audience, now getting to double down under the auspices of "my blogspam was suppressed" narratives. And I suspect that the article came under the attention of Facebook because it, exactly as intended by the author, fed directly to a certain crowd that absolutely consumes and propagates fake news (not like "it's open to debate", but just astonishingly nonsensical junk that just makes a wider and wider audience of the gullible and misled). Being embraced by that crowd is probably the biggest indicator to such systems, and 9 times out of 10 it's probably spot on.